Get the content of a specific coding guide.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"guide_name": "<guide_name>"
},
"name": "get_guide"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guide_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get the content' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but it does not mention error handling, authentication requirements, or anything about the response format. It meets the minimum but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the core purpose, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (1 parameter) and has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description is too sparse to be considered complete: it does not explain how to specify guide_name, nor does it provide any usage context or caveats. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, guide_name, has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not clarify what format the name should take, whether it must be exact, case-sensitive, or how to discover valid guide names. The description provides absolutely no additional meaning beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (get) and the resource (content of a specific coding guide). It is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool as a retrieval operation, even though there are no sibling tools to differentiate from.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when you need the content of a guide, but it does not provide explicit context on when to use it versus alternatives, mention prerequisites, or state any exclusions. With no sibling tools, the lack of explicit guidance is acceptable but still leaves room for improvement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.